Posted on 12/08/2017 10:57:09 AM PST by nickcarraway
New Year’s resolutions: get outdoors more often, read more books, and stop hanging out with people who only bring up the Holocaust as a way to illustrate unrelated arguments and never to talk about the systematic murder of six million Jews.
This week the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published an editorial, “Wedding Cakes And Conscience,” contending that a baker in Colorado being forced to design a wedding cake for a gay couple would constitute a violation of his freedom of expression. To illustrate the point, the Tribune encouraged readers to understand Colorado baker Jack Phillips’ predicament, saying, “imagine a Jewish baker being required to put a swastika on a cake.”
Read more: https://forward.com/schmooze/389592/no-forcing-jews-to-bake-swastika-cakes-is-not-like-forcing-homophobes-to-ba/
The newspaper rounded off the article about why the gay couple should stop “forcing a baker to swallow his objections” by pointing out that the cake situation is not the same as Black Americans being turned away from businesses during the Jim Crow area, since the issue there was just that a lot of the time Black people needed to use the bathroom, which is a “basic bodily function.” You know, that thing that happens after you eat a cake with a swastika on it.
Freedom of expression really is an amazing thing. In only one article, a newspaper managed to take anti-Semitism out of context to make a point about how gay people should be grateful and stop complaining, while saying that the Black civil rights movement was mostly propelled by the need to use the bathroom.
Is there a journalism award for insulting three minority groups at once? If so, nominate the Tribune.
Just buy your cake somewhere else
How about “JESUS CHRIST IS LORD” cakes?
Thanks Swastika
Read the fine print. In civil rights legislation race applies to minority races.
Name any hate crime prosecuted on behalf of a white male.
Name any time the state stepped in when a white mam was denied housing or a job or service because of the color of his skin.
You know, I have said it repeatedly over the years, I am grateful to liberals for telling me all I need to know about a given point of view in the very first sentence, often in the very first words that they use to convey their point of view.
It has saved me so much time over the last 30 years that they are literally improving the quality of my life and longevity by being to the point.
In this case, twelve words in, first sentence, I know exactly what they are going to say and how they are going to say it by characterizing as “homophobes” normal people who view homosexuality as deviant activity.
That is one minute of time reading the article that I won’t have to fret about never getting back.
Can a muslim force a gay baker to bake a cake with pictures of homos being thrown off buildings?
LOL, and WE have low expectations for their writing and analysis that THEY managed to fall short of!
...but they can be FAAAH-bulous!
That misses the point. You’re not discriminating against the person. They would make them a birthday cake or sell them anything currently in the store. This issue is forcing the baker to engage in a contract to create something for an even which they have a conscientious objection to based on religious beliefs. They’re discriminating which EVENTS they want to be a part of. Just because a gay man asks doesn’t mean there was discrimination against his protected class, the request could come from a wedding planner - the answer would be the same.
For the State to force them into such a contract is nothing more than compelled speech, coerced speech, forced servitude, etc.. - with the threat of financially (or worse) destroying them if they do not comply. That is tyranny, pure and simple.
You do have a way of driving the point home in a way that illustrates it and is sure to piss them off!
“That’s why you have morons running around denying services to white men because - get this - they’re not “protected.”
Technically, whites and men are both “protected classes”. Every race and both sexes are protected classes under the law, regardless of minority status or anything like that.
No. Forcing a Jew make a cake with Nazi swatika on it is not like forcing Christian make a cake for a homosexual, because your political conscience is NOT protected by the First Amendment, whereas the free practice of religion IS protected.
In other words you are on better legal ground forcing the Jew to make the Nazi’s cake.
But why not Freedom?
That's an easy one. A 1993 Supreme Court case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, which established that hate crime legislation did not violate First and Fourteenth Amendment protections was a case where a group of black teens attacked a white teen based solely on his race. The black teens were charged with, among other things, violation of Wisconsin's hate crime laws. They were convicted and the Supreme Court upheld it.
“Read the fine print. In civil rights legislation race applies to minority races.”
Prove it. Post the “fine print” here, if it actually exists anywhere besides your imagination.
“Name any hate crime prosecuted on behalf of a white male.”
“Name any time the state stepped in when a white mam was denied housing or a job or service because of the color of his skin.”
Generally those are civil matters that are settled by lawsuits, not by government intervention.
No one else has a right to determine what does or does not offend YOU. Homosexuals have a right to ask if you will bake them a wedding cake. You have the same right to tell them you cannot do that. You haven’t refused them service, you only informed them you will not provide a particular service. This is not legal rocket science, is it?
Wrong. It's exactly the same...
He was fine selling them one of his cakes, he just didn’t want to put a message on it.
Yes, it is. Private business being told they have to transact business.
1) You are trying to say your opposition should be morally condemned the way we condemn Nazism. Outside of special cases where the subject of criticism has done something comparable to the horrors of the Holocaust, this kind of comparison is gratuitous and is often used by idiots that just want to lash out at those they disagree with.
2) You are using the Nazis as an example of an ideology or cause that everyone accepts as wrong and evil in order to help illustrate a point other than accusing your opposition of being Nazi-like.
This article seems is treating a comparison clearly in class 2 as if it were a gratuitous comparison in class 1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.